Raw newsapi.ai request

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety and scope are partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the API key is injected automatically (so no auth param is needed) and the path is constrained to the /api/v1/ namespace. It does not mention rate limits or explain why the operation is not idempotent, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste. The escape-hatch nature and the endpoint scope are front-loaded, and the routing advice comes last where it is most actionable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an intentionally open-ended passthrough tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers identity, scope, auth handling and routing to siblings. It could say a bit more about what a caller gets back or how errors surface for invalid paths, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by showing what a valid path looks like and demonstrating a body parameter in context (resultType=conceptTrends), which is meaningful guidance for the free-form 'params' object that the schema can only describe as an unconstrained map.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific mechanism (POST arbitrary parameters to any newsapi.ai endpoint under /api/v1/) and gives three concrete endpoint examples including one with a query-style parameter. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tools by framing itself as an 'escape hatch' and telling the agent to prefer dedicated tools when they fit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear when-not rule: 'Prefer the dedicated tools when they fit,' which tells the agent this is the fallback for endpoints/parameters the dedicated tools don't cover. What's missing is an explicit mapping of which sibling covers which endpoint (e.g. that getArticles maps to newsapi_search_articles), so the agent must infer that from the sibling names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.